Search This Blog

Without the right to communicate and democratisation of communication, the right to life, liberty, freedom of speech and expression is meaningless.It attempts to keep track of traditional media, offline media and digital media that faces the onslaught of monopolistic tendencies and is wary of localisation of media. It is part of Citizens Forum for Civil Liberties (CFCL) For Details: https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/mediavigil/info

Top 30 who rule the media

You had to live in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard...—`1984' George Orwell

Here is a list of some top 30 people who rule the Indian print, electronic and interactive media. Your comments are invited about their political and corporate affiliations and where do they stand in your opinion. Also you may add your own suggestions with regard to the same.

1. Amar Singh*, media user (Indian media is no more the same after they received a CD called`Amar Singh ki Amar Kahani'** containing 24-set of conversation of Amar Singh allegedly having talks with Mulayam Singh, Anil Ambani, Bipasha Basu, Jayaprada, Mahima Chowdhry, PrabhuChawla and others)

**The controversial editor who figures most controversially in theAmar Singh tapes, swearing at Congress boss Sonia Gandhi in downright gutter language. Congressmen have reportedly boycotted this newschannel and publication. Both Sonia and Singh had made a bigsplash at the same conclave last year. A recent conclave in Delhi organised by this media house was boycotted by the Congress Party, with one exception of Captain Satish Sharma. Will this non-owner editor survive this crises too?.

This editor almost managed to become a Member of Parliament in the Rajya Sabha. A prominent Samajwadi leader enlisted the support of the JD(S) chief Deve Gowda from Karnataka. He had the endorsement from Pramod Mahajan to back his candidature with the surplus votes from the BJP. The big two of the BJP did not oppose his candidature. But whenSushma Swaraj and Arun Jaitley got wind of it they vehemently opposed it. As a result, the editor has been denied an opportunity to be an MP and in his place BJP-friendly industrialist, Rajeev Chandrashekhar became the MP.

These media people think common man in the street are fools. If they care so much about Breaking News, why didn't they print about the contents of Amar Singh and company. Is it too far fetched to suggest that their (media groups) palms have been greased. Most channelsclaimed to have received the CDs, but none aired it.

On February 27, 2006, the Supreme Court directed the electronic and print media not to air or publish the CD/tapes containing Amar Singh's conversations with film stars and industrialists. Singh is Chairman, Uttar Pradesh Development Council (UPDC).

*Singh claims that UPDC is registered under Societies Registration Act and thus did not fall under government. Had that been the case then National Water Development Agency (NWDA), which is also registered as society would not be deemed a government body although it is implementing 120 billion dollar Interlinking of Rivers project of Ministry of Water Resources, Government of India.

It would mean that Indian Institute of Mass Communication (IIMC) is also registered under Indian Societies Act Registration Act is not a government body, which is not the case as it is directly administered by the Union Ministry of Information & Broadcasting. And Arora and Tripathy hold two offices of profit in the same way as Amar Singh does.

The order was issued during the hearing of a petition filed by Singh seeking a judicial inquiry into illegal phone tapping. The general restraint order came from a three judge bench comprising Chief Justice Y K Sabharwal, Justice C K Thakkar and Justice R V Raveendran which also directed, both the electronic and print media, not to publish or display any unauthorised and illegally tapped telephonic conversations till the matter is heard and guidelines laid down by this court. The order came without hearing the media, including TV news channels and newspapers.

Prashant Bhusan, a public interest lawyer opposed the order, saying right to privacy does not include conversations for illegal dealings. He also submitted that most of the conversations contained in the alleged CD being circulated in TV channels relate to shady deals.

The court adjourned the matter till March 20, directing the Centre as well as the Delhi government to file additional affidavits detailing all the illegal tappings being done by service providers with or without the orders of competent authorities. The court also recorded the statements of Solicitor General G E Vahanvati and Additional Solicitor General Gopal Subramaniam saying that they had no objections to general restraint order against the media. The court also issued notices to other service providers. The court dropped the Congress Party's name from the list of respondents.

On March 20, 2006, the Delhi Government informed the Court that it has taken steps to prevent illegal phone tapping during the hearing of Amar Singh's phone tapping case. Additional Solicitor told the court that Delhi Police Commissioner K K Paul has appointed a committee under the Joint Commissioner of Police (Special Cell) to meet twice a month. It would be ensured that service providers would not intercept the phone calls of anyone without writtenorders of the officers specially authorised to sign such orders.

The bench comprising Chief Justice Sabharwal, Justice Lakshmanan and Justice Thakker directed the cellular companies to file their affidavits within two weeks detailing the procedure adopted by them to intercept the phone calls and also give details of how many phones were under such illegal surveillance throughout the country.

The court, while adjourning the hearing for four weeks, also granted a week's time to P H Pareekh, counsel for Amar Singh, to file his rejoinder affidavit. Singh is seeking a judicial inquiry into his phone tapping.

The court was also informed that investigation in the case was already over and charge-sheet had been filed against four accused who are in custody. Earlier, the Centre, in its affidavit, submitted that on February 28 this year, a total 3728 lines were under surveillance by all the seven Central Security and Law Enforcement Agencies as perthe Union Home Ministry.

It has been reported that Solicitor General G E Vahanwati, appearing for the Government, told the court that there was not even a single illegal phone tapping as far as the Centre was concerned. During the hearing, the court also indicated that it would consider separately the issue of sting operation by the media to expose corruption and illegal acts among those holding public offices and officials. The court is going to issue guidelines for phone tapping as it involved the privacy of a citizen and can be resorted to only in exceptional circumstances such as national security or communal harmony and that too with the prior permission of the competent authority.

Popular posts from this blog

Note: Procedural Establishments Under The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 gives protection to a person who is still a Public Servant at the time the prosecution is launched, and also when he is no longer a public servant. This is to protect the Public Servant from a case being filed against him after his retirement. When the government servant or the employee is not removable from his office without the sanction of the Central Government, then the same is necessary. Sanction under this section is not necessary before a Public Servant could be prosecuted for an offence of bribery under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. There are three facets in the consideration of the protection given by Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. to the acts done by public officers. (i) The act complained attaches to it the official character of the person doing it; (ii) The official character or status of the accused gave him an opportunity of doing the…

Press ReleaseQuestionable and illegal UIDAI completes four yearsMaj Gen S.G.Vombatkere, VSM tell President that UID is extra-legal,
unethical, coercive
New Delhi, 28 Jan, 2013: Prime
Minister headed Cabinet Committee on UID related matters (CCUIDRM) which also
deal with National Population Register (NPR) has ensured that Unique
Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) continues to complete its four years
of existence without any legal basis and without disclosing that UID database
and NPR database is being merged with the electoral database. UIDAI was created
by a notification of Planning Commission dated January28, 2009.The notification is attached. As of as on
January 2, 2013, Cabinet Committee on
Unique Identification Authority of India related issues includes Prime
Minister, Sharad Pawar, Minister of Agriculture and Minister of Food Processing
Industries, P. Chidambaram, Minister of Finance, Sushilkumar Shinde, Minister
of Home Affairs, Mallikarjun Kharge, Minister of Labour and …

At a program to mark the 76th birth anniversary of late Prabhash Joshi, well known columnist and former editor of Nayi Duniya, Jansatta and Indian Express, speaker after speaker demanded the formation of Third Press Commission. The program was organised on July 15 at Satyagrah Mandap, Raj Ghat by Prabhash Parampra Nyas and Gandhi Smriti awam Darshan Samiti.

It has come to light that the efforts of senior journalists like Ram Bahadur Rai, Ram Sharan Joshi and Kuldeep Nayar have been demanding setting up of the Third Press Commission from the Manmohan Singh Govt but due to resistance from the de facto head of the state, it has not been constituted so far.

Press Council of India in its report of 2001 had also recommended setting up of a Third Press Commission during Justice PB Swant's tenure. Justice G.N. Ray, the Press Council chairman also recommended it in his speech in 2009 in Kolkata.

In July 2011, at a function in Indore too, journalists marched in the streets demanding…